+1.
Tsz-Wo
________________________________
From: Stack
To: general@hadoop.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Change bylaws to require 3 binding +1s for branch merge
+1
On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:41 PM, Eli Collins wrote:
> +1 Sounds good to me.
>
> Something like the following?
>
> Index: main/author/src/documentation/content/xdocs/bylaws.xml
> ==================================================================
> Lazy consensus of active committers, but with a minimum of
> - one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1.
> + one +1. The code can be committed after the first +1, unless
> + the code change represents a merge from a branch, in which case
> + three +1s are required.
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Jakob Homan wrote:
>> As discussed in the recent thread on HDFS-1623 branching models, I'd
>> like to amend the bylaws to provide that branches should get a minimum
>> of three committer +1s before being merged to trunk.
>>
>> The rationale:
>> Feature branches are often created in order that developers can
>> iterate quickly without the review then commit requirements of trunk.
>> Branches' commit requirements are determined by the branch maintainer
>> and in this situation are often set up as commit-then-review. As
>> such, there is no way to guarantee that the entire changeset offered
>> for trunk merge has had a second pair of eyes on it. Therefore, it is
>> prudent to give that final merge heightened scrutiny, particularly
>> since these branches often extensively affect critical parts of the
>> system. Requiring three binding +1s does not slow down the branch
>> development process, but does provide a better chance of catching bugs
>> before they make their way to trunk.
>>
>> Specifically, under the Actions subsection, this vote would add a new
>> bullet item:
>> * Branch merge: A feature branch that does not require the same
>> criteria for code to be committed to trunk will require three binding
>> +1s before being merged into trunk.
>>
>> The last bylaw change required lazy majority of PMC and ran for 7
>> days, which I believe would apply to this one as well. That would
>> have this vote ending 5pm PST July 18.
>> -Jakob
>>
>